1. Ok i will say it again i don't know why is difficult to understand that comparing two players as of the same type doesn't mean of the same level in this type.2. Milwaukee did the trade thanks to Udoh. No Udoh no trade so Ellis didn't land Bogut.3. Saying that Lakers would win 3 championships with AI in place of Bryant meaning they are the same calibre? I will not even comment on that sorry.

warriorsstepup wrote:Iverson aint what ? You should do some research and look at his legacy on the league before you just throw statements like that.

LMAO "his legacy"

The only legacy Allen Iverson has is the inate ability to garner fans on his jock for minor athletic accomplishments that add up to a hill of beans. He was a ball-hogging scoring champ. Ooooooh, so was McGrady who got laughed off the panel at Sportscenter for suggesting he had Hall-of-Fame credentials. Wow. What else did AI do? Oh yeah, he piggy-backed the DPoY/rebounding title Mutumbo had and landed in the finals during the nuclear winter that was the Eastern Conference in the post-Jordan era, where 4 different teams in 4 consecutive years won the Eastern Conference Finals! Indiana, Jersey, NY, AND Philly all went in consecutive years! Yet Reggie Miller has nothing of the fanboys swinging from his jock that AI does... Btw, he LOST! But he STILL has millions acting like he won it.

You won't change my mind on AI, and from the sound of it I won't be changing yours anytime soon. I guess it just depends on what level of accomplishment an NBA player must attain to impress you. AI obviously impressed the hell outta you. But a ball-hogging PG sucking up every possession to shoot and ending up with 30 points? Doesn't impress me. AI is McGrady status at worst and AT BEST, Bernard King status.

I don't even know where to begin with this, the point is not even to argue his legacy A.I goes down as one of the greats, whether you agree or not that is an established established FACT. As an ineffecient, ball hogger, etc, etc as he was, he led his teams to wins, while not a championship he was a winner, he played at a high level for majority of his career, the accolades prove it, NBA is the highest level of basketball, regular folks don't carry their teams the way A.I., I think you are confusing A.I and Marbury.

Reggie gets his props too, obviously, while there can be certain arguments about the greats, they are categorized on that level for a reason, and certain arguments and flaws about them still don't shake the fact they are greats.

Often injured T-MAc, if T-Mac was fully healthy he would be categorized in the "GREAT" level as well, that is fact.

32, I pick up the fact you have high standards, meaning the only folks that impress you might be Jordan, Kobe, Shaq. While the likes of Stockton and Malone, who ever else have not won a championship are frowned upon.

Edited: From the last couple of decades the most influential bball player other than Jordan, Iverson, thats just another fact.

I completely agree with TRON's post above regarding Udoh and the Kobe-AI comparison. The only thing I'll add is:

1, the besides-Jordan-most-influential remark is waaaay off base. They changed the rules to adapt to Jordan (hand-checking). They likewise did it to Shaq (5-second back-to-basket), LeBron (expansion of traveling rules), and Mutumbo (defensive 3 seconds). Those are just 3 examples. Iverson was never good enough for the league to make it fairer on everyone else by changing protocol. And...

2, You keep claiming Iverson was a "winner", warriorsstepup. I'm curious... Do you realize his career win-loss record is below .500? (it's 47.4%, if you're curious)

You can now either cop to him being a loser or you can backtrack and suddenly blame his teammates like all AI's fans (and AI himself). Either way, I think we've both said what we need to say and there's no changing each other's minds. To some people, the game's all about scoring. To the rest of us, it's an all-around game. Obviously, you value 30 points beyond winning games.

WoW now Udoh was the one that had the trade value ? Udoh while I like him has proven what to merit getting Bogut in exchange. Did you watch last nights game ? You think they would just throw Monta with starters minutes if he was not the reason the trade was made.

And reports claim Bucks turned down a Brook Lopez for Monta trade. Meaning if they traded Bogut for Udoh then they would have jumped on a proven young center Brook and let Monta go.

32, A.I will end up in the Hall of Fame, its really that simple, he lands as one of the greatest, its a fact you might deny, but the fact that he will enter the hall speaks for it's self.

Rookie year, 2nd year, Sixers had bad records for the obvious reason, reason they had a high pick, but after year 2, sixers where in the playoffs.

Its a mute point, the man will enter the Hall, you can argue that all day but it will happen.

My case is done hear I have said my points, I have my beliefs about the trade, and the team, and look at the picture from a wider view than most.

IMO, Iverson was a terrific basketball player (best 6 feet and under in the league's history), that allowed his ego to get the best of him in his career. How was Iverson in his prime? unstoppable. Arguably top 3 player during a 5-6 year (ages 25-30) stretch where no one could stop him (not to mention that his first 4 years were high quality). He started dwindling once he hit the age of 30, which had his scoring drop (along with his ability to drive).

But I cannot compare him to T-Mac. T-mac didn't have a drive to win like Iverson did during his prime. Iverson at least made it past the first round of the playoffs more than 4 times (including one NBA final's appearance). TMac has never advance when he was healthy to play. Tmac only has 2 years in his prime of amazing basketball, getting 2 all nba first teams (along with 4 years of high quality basketball, the rest being just average).

my point, to go back to your original point, is that i do not think it is impossible to win with a tweener, shoot first guard, as long as there is a defense guard to compliment them. If you have two shoot first guards out there (like the warriors did with Monte and Curry), we will get eaten alive defensively. I think the warriors would have been more successful with Rondo paired with Monta for that same reason, Two players that bring completely different things.

warriorsstepup wrote:WoW now Udoh was the one that had the trade value ? Udoh while I like him has proven what to merit getting Bogut in exchange. Did you watch last nights game ? You think they would just throw Monta with starters minutes if he was not the reason the trade was made.

And reports claim Bucks turned down a Brook Lopez for Monta trade. Meaning if they traded Bogut for Udoh then they would have jumped on a proven young center Brook and let Monta go.

32, A.I will end up in the Hall of Fame, its really that simple, he lands as one of the greatest, its a fact you might deny, but the fact that he will enter the hall speaks for it's self.

Rookie year, 2nd year, Sixers had bad records for the obvious reason, reason they had a high pick, but after year 2, sixers where in the playoffs.

Its a mute point, the man will enter the Hall, you can argue that all day but it will happen.

My case is done hear I have said my points, I have my beliefs about the trade, and the team, and look at the picture from a wider view than most.

Fair enough. Your bottom line that he'll end up in the hall of fame is probably true. Now, whether he SHOULD go or not, that's where we disagree.

It's a Bogut interview with an Australian & he's probably already answered the generic questions asked by interviewers the past few days in which you have all seen. STILL thought it needed to be shared.

warriorsstepup wrote:Iverson aint what ? You should do some research and look at his legacy on the league before you just throw statements like that.

As far as Bogut hope they rest this dude, and be proactive in his rehabilitation, cater to whatever injury he has, or watch Beans next season.

Iverson will go down as one of the ten best guards ever and up until about five years ago, his individual career was better than Kobe's. Switch Iverson and Kobe from Lakers and Sixers and Lakers still win three in a row and Sixers never win as much as they did. Role players like Snow, McKie and Lynch were nothing outside of playing on that Philly team next to Iverson. The highligh of their lives was that trip to the finals and playing alongside Iverson. Iverson took arguably the least talented team to ever make a finals that far

That's the general perception. Not the arguement between him orkobe being better, that's another subject on its on, but everything else.

I was just using the Iverson comparison to Kobe as a way of illustrating how good Iverson was. Noone will ever say that Kobe was not a great player and one of the best of all time, not after the last five years where he finally showed himself to be able to be the main star of a team and win championships, though having PGasol, Odom, Bynum, a very good supporting cast and the greatest coach ever are what really allowed that to happen. Yet, five years ago, Iverson had had the better career and less to work with around him, that means so much. The fact that that little midget, thin mouse out there amongst giants was able to do what he did and get a very untalented team to win as much they did, though they most seasons were nothing special, is unbelievable and almost all guards in nba history couldn't have done that

Still, if you had to assemble a winner, would you wanna build your team around a shoot-first PG? A career 26.7 PPG... but by way of 42.5% from the field? That's a volume shooter. 27 points on 42% means he was taking over 20 shots a game! From the point guard position??

Come on, miggy. We've had our differences in the past, but you and I practically built this forum (with the help of TMC) and I know you're a smart enough guy to understand that a point guard is a pass-first position... And when your ball-handler takes 21.8 shots per game (his career #), you're not gonna win. And he didn't win; he LOST. Habitually, save for a fluke year to the Finals (where they lost 4-1).

The bottom line is that the Warriors see it my way; which is why they acquired your countryman. In the NBA, a 6'-ish scorer can't win... But a 7-footer whose a biscuit or two away from 270? That's what you build around. After 7 years, the Monta Ellis project (which was the same formula Philly tried to use with Iverson) is over.

I, for one, am stoked.

Yea, we've had our differences here, not getting into that.

To cover your point: This little discussion wasn't about what you'd want to build your team around, it was whether Iverson was a great player or not. You obviously believe he wasn't, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Me and a couple of others at least believe he was a great player and we've presented facts and information about him proving he was.

Iverson's low FG% is no different to many other guards in the nba in the last twenty years or so. At his height, he was never going to hit close to 50%, especially being on the awful teams he was on and having to carry much of the scoring and creating load.

Iverson has an incredible career scoring average and his assists average is among the best guards who played during his career, with over 6 per game. He has by far the highest scoring plus assists average, all the time surrounded by the garbage players he had.

As someone pointed out recently in this thread, the first two seasons of Iverson's career, those teams were awful and unorganised. They had too many players that thought they were stars and wanted to be the first option offensively. Players like Stackhouse, Coleman and Weatherspoon, I remember that team was awfully organised. As soon as Iverson was given the lead in that Philly team, they made the playoffs and did so for a few years there, making the finals once.

Monta Ellis has reached his peak and it is VERY nice to say about him that he is a poor man's Iverson. The team never won with Monta leading the team and getting Bogut for him was a steal and that will be seen starting next season. Australian or not, I look at Bogut for what he is, a very good Center that addresses team's weaknesses and needs, namely rebounding and defense. It has been over thirty years since the team had a true star Center and now that there is one, now it is time to build a proper championship contender.

I give much credit for the FO making this trade. I want more, more is required to make a real contender and this FO might make it happen now

Mr. Crackerz wrote:IMO, Iverson was a terrific basketball player (best 6 feet and under in the league's history), that allowed his ego to get the best of him in his career. How was Iverson in his prime? unstoppable. Arguably top 3 player during a 5-6 year (ages 25-30) stretch where no one could stop him (not to mention that his first 4 years were high quality). He started dwindling once he hit the age of 30, which had his scoring drop (along with his ability to drive).

But I cannot compare him to T-Mac. T-mac didn't have a drive to win like Iverson did during his prime. Iverson at least made it past the first round of the playoffs more than 4 times (including one NBA final's appearance). TMac has never advance when he was healthy to play. Tmac only has 2 years in his prime of amazing basketball, getting 2 all nba first teams (along with 4 years of high quality basketball, the rest being just average).

my point, to go back to your original point, is that i do not think it is impossible to win with a tweener, shoot first guard, as long as there is a defense guard to compliment them. If you have two shoot first guards out there (like the warriors did with Monte and Curry), we will get eaten alive defensively. I think the warriors would have been more successful with Rondo paired with Monta for that same reason, Two players that bring completely different things.

TMac injured his back permanently and that's why he did't continue his megastar standard. He's one of the saddest stories in that regard in nba history. He was outplaying everyone, getting scoring champion and being a great allround player. He didn't win in the playoffs, but he needed more years, with that Houston team with an often injured Yao as well. If both were healthy and they had a few years to build that team around tham, I think they would have had alot of playoff success, even with Yao being such a soft player

You can't make excuses for a 41% average, miggy. Tiny Archibald (whom Iverson was compared to) had a 47% average, so you can't fall back on the height thing. Also, as the #1 overall draft pick, Iverson was handed the lead job in Philly from day 1. The first 2 seasons were awful and the Sixers also had a couple years before finally trading AI to Denver. I agree that he could score, but his 6 assists per game mean little when you bring up the fact that he threw the ball away 4 times a night. I simply can't say a positive without also adding a negative. I mean, here's how it is:

+ bonafide scorer, but...- low %'s.

+ got 6 assists per game, but...- also threw the ball away 4 times a night

+ as the leader, took his team to the NBA finals, but...- lost the series and never got close to another one

I just don't consider guys with that many hot and cold qualities to be among the most "influential of all-time". Clearly, we'll end this discussion on a disagreement. I've said my piece, so I'm ready to get back to the topic of Andrew Bogut and I'll leave you gents the last word on AI.

Well, I think this discussion is just a disagreement and that's alright, so I will end it with a counter to your last post and I will do so by comparing Iverson with Kobe (who everyone will say, rank and list in the top 10 players of all time and likely #2 SG of all time after Jordan the greatest player ever), just a little more indepth this time:

FG% and Scoring - *Iverson = 9.3 shots made, 21.8 attempted, 42.5FG%, 26.7pts a game *Kobe = 8.9 shots made, 19.5 attempts, 45.4FG%, 25.4pts a game The difference is almost 3% and that is minimal. You can pick and choose, fine tooth comb if you like, but since neither guy averaged anywhere near 50FG%, it really matters little. The much taller Kobe should hit more of his shots, as the much smaller Iverson has a much harder time shooting over other players. To me, the FG% of Kobe would have been as bad or only very marginally better than Iverson's if Kobe had been in Iverson's place in Philly and not playing on a loaded Lakers team, next to top 10 player ever Shaq. Kobe had easier shots, setup usually be double and triple teams on Shaq, Iverson wished he had that. The two seasons Iverson played in Denver, alongside fellow superstar Carmelo, his FG% increased to 45.4 and 45.8FG%. Similar to Kobe's hey Iverson's scoring did not take a hit either, 24.8pts and 26.4pts for both seasons. And that is really what tells the story about Allen Iverson, he never played with any other player remotely a star and then he played alongside Carmelo, finally having some help and someone else to take the opposition defensive attention and it did wonders for him.

Even with the opposing team sending all five guys at Iverson, he still outscored Kobe for his career and Kobe has increased his scoring average his last seven years, while Iverson scored alot less his last four years. Take their first ten years of their careers and Iverson was doing alot more than Kobe, especially scoring alot more.

Assists and TOs - *Iverson = 6.2asts and 3.6TOs *Kobe = 4.7asts, 3.0TOs Iverson, who played more at SG for Philly than PG, got alot more assists than Kobe, yet not much more TOs. More, but again, for a guy that fought through the opposing team's five players every night, while doing all the ball handling, with noone really to give the ball to that was worthy of much, he should have gotten alot more TOs than Kobe over his career. Who to pass to as well and get those assists. Iverson had garbage, Kobe had Shaq and no real distributing PG next to him, he handled the ball alot to give it to Shaq. Iverson was always among league leaders in assists.

Iverson did more than Kobe and in a much tougher situation, with far less talent, never any star next to him, as Mutombo was a rebounder and shotblocker, awful offensive player and he wasn't their in Philly for that long. Iverson got smashed over and over during his career, playing through some injuries many times, the tough little bastard.

Kobe is a top 10 player alltime to many people, certainly among them and certainly one of the best players in his era, many will say the best player in his era, but that goes more because he plays for the Lakers, played with Shaq to get his first three championships, had the best coach of alltime organising things for him and had other talented players around him for his recent two championships, like PGasol, Odom and ABynum. The information I presented shows that Iverson was not just at Kobe's level, but actually did more when he should have not been able to, being in a much tougher situation. Therefore Iverson has to be considered one of the greatest players ever himself, certainly among guards. If people hadn't been so negative against him, more due to his tough guy, I do what I want attitude, early in his career, he'd be alot more popular and would be thought of much higher for his career than what he is

Jordan and Chandler's lack of offense holds LAC/NY below us, Atlanta's undersized (Horford is a PF, Smith is a SF), and the other 2 notables (IND and CHI) are just flat-out less talented. Depending on what Bogut brings, they might even be better than Memphis... Especially if David Lee is an actual 19 and 10 player in Mark Jackson's offense. Another year of that, plus a 13-10-3 line from Bogut, would make it especially hard to argue any tandem outside of LA is superior.

I think our frontcourt will be the best passing/best rebounding from the low post duo.

It all depends though cause those combos you mentioned #32 each provide something different. For example the Gasol/Bynnum is the best scoring frontcourt & the Gasol/Randolph might just challenge us for the best rebounding backcourt.rI'm a little suprised that you forgot to add Dwight Howard/Ryan Anderson.. I know Ryan Anderson isn't much (can stroke the 3) but Dwight is good enough to prop him up into the discussion of best duo. (Batman & Robin argument.. Not Starsky & Hutch)

Jordan and Chandler's lack of offense holds LAC/NY below us, Atlanta's undersized (Horford is a PF, Smith is a SF), and the other 2 notables (IND and CHI) are just flat-out less talented. Depending on what Bogut brings, they might even be better than Memphis... Especially if David Lee is an actual 19 and 10 player in Mark Jackson's offense. Another year of that, plus a 13-10-3 line from Bogut, would make it especially hard to argue any tandem outside of LA is superior.

Dwight should be in there no matter who he's paired with. I really like Hibbert and West, they're doing really well for Indiana. I think Noah and Boozer is too high on that list. Don't really know where we stand in the NBA, but I'm really excited to see Bogut on the court for us.

One knock I have on Lee is that he doesn't play outstanding defense. He's maybe an average defender at best. The only time I see him play above average defense is when we play against Boston. I think there's something about KG that just inspires Lee to play hard. It's probably because KG talks a lot of smack. Another tidbit I've notice about Lee is that he likes to talk a little smack himself. I think it was against the clippers after a dunk I read Lee lips saying something like "da **** off me!". I'd love to see more of that out of him.

Another thing I'd like to add over the off-season is a premier defender. I know I said it before, but I would love someone in the mold of Tony Allen. Someone to lock down the other teams' leading scorer. Maybe McGuire could fill that role for us, but I'd prefer someone with starting potential.